disability benefits in ireland- david mc william's article

Maura74

Treehousetim wrote: »

I think this is the most important point. Human nature is programmed to get the best for itself so of course people will con and abuse.
I do think people with illnesses that make their lives more expensive.. Like say total blindness, a serious mental handicap, terminal cancers should not suffer hardship. In these cases I think a generous benefit is warranted. Why someone with a mild version of depression is given the same as someone dying from a brain tumour or someone mentally handicapped is ridiculous.
This blanket definition of a "disability" is unhelpful and means that the government has to tread around cutting disability like on eggshells because the media focus on the blind, the handicapped etc to provoke reactions when any cuts to disability are proposed.

In the UK if a person suffers from an illness that last longer than a year then it is classed as a disability. However to get disability payments they have to provide evidence of that disability ie GP or Consultants reports with massive forms to fill in as well and if they have an operation and get better then that payment will end.

Link to the government definition of disability under the equality act 2010
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

I am sure most people with disabilities would rather work then stay at home doing nothing, but what employers going to employ them (if there was a job available for them) and or make adjustments for their employees disability. Companies will employ some disabled people and keep them on until the government ends its grants to them.

I agree people will con and abuse the system, for instance the rich and big business will employ accounts to get them off paying taxes and big business will not give people a living wage and get away with it. Also, in the UK, as that I know about and do not know about Ireland, the tax payer has to subsidised big business because we have to make up minimum wages to enable people to live on it. The cost of living could be changed if employers were made to pay a living wage and the accommodation could be affordable if there was a cap put on rents, but will that happen…….:(.

Cienciano

It's too easy to abuse. I have neighbours, a single mother that can't work due to mental illness. She says it's her "nerves". She works cash in hand. Boyfriend lives with her, has a van for his delivery job (cash in hand) but officially he can't work because of his back, hes also on the dole on disability benefits too. Unbelievable how some people abuse the system

relax carry on

Cienciano wrote: »

It's too easy to abuse. I have neighbours, a single mother that can't work due to mental illness. She says it's her "nerves". She works cash in hand. Boyfriend lives with her, has a van for his delivery job (cash in hand) but officially he can't work because of his back, hes also on the dole on disability benefits too. Unbelievable how some people abuse the system

Any chance of reporting that to the authorities, the DSP and Revenue?

maninasia

I don't think it has been mentioned yet but people on disability don't get counted towards the unemployed figures. This is very convenient for the government. You'll notice they like any schemes such as the intern scheme which removes people from the unemployment register.

Cienciano

relax carry on wrote: »

Any chance of reporting that to the authorities, the DSP and Revenue?

Reported it, nothing done.

TheRealPONeil

" ...social welfare is defined as those public programs designed to provide an individual who is in financial need with the resources to exist in society. Social welfare is an integral part of the coercive social control system developed to maintain the status quo in which the dominant classes of the society try to control those they define as potential, if not actual, disruption of the stability of the community. The stability of the community incorporates maintenance of the present inequitable power arrangements, the inequitable distributions of economic resources and inequitable life chances."

- Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare;Vol. 2 Issue 1, 1974.

Farmer Pudsey

TheRealPONeil wrote: »

" ...social welfare is defined as those public programs designed to provide an individual who is in financial need with the resources to exist in society. Social welfare is an integral part of the coercive social control system developed to maintain the status quo in which the dominant classes of the society try to control those they define as potential, if not actual, disruption of the stability of the community. The stability of the community incorporates maintenance of the present inequitable power arrangements, the inequitable distributions of economic resources and inequitable life chances."

- Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare;Vol. 2 Issue 1, 1974.

And your point is

Treehousetim

Im pretty certain all people that posted here feel that a modest social welfare system is most reasonable. One of the points of the thread is that some people are claiming for disability when they are not unfit for work, thus undermining genuine disability. And they are doing so to get preferential rates and conditions of welfare payments and sometimes are better off than those who work.

Gatling

Cienciano wrote: »

Reported it, nothing done.

28000 reports of fraud last year the social welfare automatically dismissed 10000 of them without investigation

skafish

Gatling wrote: »

28000 reports of fraud last year the social welfare automatically dismissed 10000 of them without investigation

:mad::mad:
Does anybody know why?

Gatling

skafish wrote: »

:mad::mad:
Does anybody know why?

Unless the 10,000 weren't actually in receipt of social welfare then your guess is as good as any

maninasia

They probably prioritise cases and therefore just ditched cases that were harder to prove or have less financial impact.
They should farm this work out to the private sector i.e. fraud detection. That would sort out the problem pretty quickly.

Farmer Pudsey

maninasia wrote: »

They probably prioritise cases and therefore just ditched cases that were harder to prove or have less financial impact.
They should farm this work out to the private sector i.e. fraud detection. That would sort out the problem pretty quickly.

I disagree we have a lot of PS however because we fail to redeploy within area's because of union/worker agitation often area's that require staff are under resourced. Also staff often do not wish to work in ''nasty'' area's like this. Therefore the problems just festers. Farming it out will add to government costs unless we have a redundancy program for excess staff. As this is not in place at present staff should be redeployed to sort issue's like this.

We constantly get claims from the PS that because of fraud and tax evasion that there wages are being cut put them in area's like this an let see them actually sort the issue's

maninasia

I know that public sector staff should be doing this or that. But if it was contracted out you wouldn't have to worry about all those issues, because they'd get paid according to their ability to reduce the fraud bill, and therefore would prove their value for money very quickly and probably cost nothing to the state in the process. You'd even be creating employment in the process as they would need to hire more private detectives, investigators, lawyers etc to prosecute the claims. This is what happens when a claim is placed to an insurance company, above a certain amount they will investigate thoroughly to both prevent a fraudulent insurance payout and as a warning to others who might aim to do likewise. By reducing the fraudulent claim rate this helps to keep policy costs lower for consumers and businesses.

What you do is incentivise fraud detection at the same time as deincentivising fraud perpetration. This should be separated from public sector and Croke Park issues.

Treehousetim

Nice idea but how do your fraud people prove someone is not depressed and make a good case for it? Virtually impossible. Plus it's a political minefield.

323

skafish wrote: »

:mad::mad:
Does anybody know why?

Know of one definite case that was reported, on welfare, new high spec SUV every second year or so , Florida holidays etc.
Social Protection said they could do nothing unless the additional work/earnings came from illegal activities.
Appears doing the double is not considered to be breaking the law!

Treehousetim

323 wrote: »

Appears doing the double is not considered to be breaking the law!

What do you mean by "doing the double" ?

AlekSmart

Treehousetim wrote: »

What do you mean by "doing the double" ?

The big "C" I suspect ....COhabitation ?

The net effect of featherbedding the DFSA/DSP over the past decade has been to make any attempts to Police it now,very dangerous indeed.

Farmer Pudsey:I disagree we have a lot of PS however because we fail to redeploy within area's because of union/worker agitation often area's that require staff are under resourced. Also staff often do not wish to work in ''nasty'' area's like this. Therefore the problems just festers. Farming it out will add to government costs unless we have a redundancy program for excess staff. As this is not in place at present staff should be redeployed to sort issue's like this.

Farmer P is quite correct when speaking of the DSP's Investigation Unit.
Whilst it has received substantial extra resources,it remains literally buckled under the outstanding workload.

It's all well and good reading of x thousand being investigated and y hundred having payments reduced or removed,but to reach even that stage will have involved hundreds of man-hours and the associated paperwork.

If any such case goes to court,you can be assured the DSP's cost will be vast,even in cases of relatively small amounts in "Overpayments" which may be contested.

There is a perception that any action by the Investigation Section just has to be wrong,and must be fought to the bitter end.

In the time of plenty,pre Joan Burton,individual DSP Officials were pretty "understanding" about these little counter-indications and often allowed claims through without insisting on full compliance from the claimant.

In cases of other agency involvement,Local Authorities,Health Boards or any entity making payments,these were rarely cross-referenced as they necessary staff were not there and,in certain areas,it may have been deemed more expedient to preserve a certain peaceful relationship for the greater good.

In Joan Burtons defence,she has been the first Minister for Social Protection to actually empower the DSP Officers to take unpopular decisions in addition to redeploying resources to the Investigation Section.

However,as the RTE Prime Time programme of some years back demonstrated,it is all but impossible to secure supportive statements and even assistance in the cases they do pursue.

Equally,even when cases do get to court,with CCTV and other evidence in abundance,a Judge can and often does exercise discretion in sentencing.

Whether the "Contributing Classes" like it or not,a great number of people do not consider making false or misleading DSP Claims to be a crime...not even close,in fact some see it as just playing the game,lose one and you'll win the next.

It is little wonder the Angela Merkel views us with such mystification ....:p

Treehousetim

But seriously, do you think it's the fault of the people or the system? So if your buddy down the road is having a cruisy lifestyle and spending lots of quality time with their kids, because they falsely claim to be depressed or with back pain, then why wouldn't you do the same? The flaw is in the system. They need to incentivize work. You need to be rewarded for working.

maninasia

Treehousetim wrote: »

Nice idea but how do your fraud people prove someone is not depressed and make a good case for it? Virtually impossible. Plus it's a political minefield.

Well you first go after the people who are working cash in hand, it's not that difficult.

NIMAN

Treehousetim wrote: »

What do you mean by "doing the double" ?

Getting unemployment benefit while you are working as well, often for cash in hand.

Treehousetim

Putting people who work for cash in hand aside for a minute, don't you think that it's unfair that a family on benefits can have more significantly more disposable income than a family that works. That is whats fuelling it as far as I can see.

Farmer Pudsey

maninasia wrote: »

Well you first go after the people who are working cash in hand, it's not that difficult.

NIMAN wrote: »

Getting unemployment benefit while you are working as well, often for cash in hand.

As Aleck Smart showed it is impossible to police benefit fraud, it is just as hard to police cash in hand fraud. This idea that you can micro manage a black economy or a benefit scheme is not dealing with reality. It is the PS job to do and they fail miserably. Using excuses about political interference is not being realistic either.

Maybe if judges took a harder line we might see an improvement however we have not got the jail capacity for it to act as a prevention tool.

skafish

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I disagree we have a lot of PS however because we fail to redeploy within area's because of union/worker agitation often area's that require staff are under resourced. Also staff often do not wish to work in ''nasty'' area's like this. Therefore the problems just festers. Farming it out will add to government costs unless we have a redundancy program for excess staff. As this is not in place at present staff should be redeployed to sort issue's like this.

We constantly get claims from the PS that because of fraud and tax evasion that there wages are being cut put them in area's like this an let see them actually sort the issue's

:mad: Fair play to you farmer, you never miss a chance to bash the PS.

Change the record FFS

maninasia

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

As Aleck Smart showed it is impossible to police benefit fraud, it is just as hard to police cash in hand fraud. This idea that you can micro manage a black economy or a benefit scheme is not dealing with reality. It is the PS job to do and they fail miserably. Using excuses about political interference is not being realistic either.

Maybe if judges took a harder line we might see an improvement however we have not got the jail capacity for it to act as a prevention tool.

Sure you can, you give incentives to people to dob the fraudsters in, and then you give incentives to the private detectives and private firms to catch the fraudsters, and you can give incentives to the PS overseers (by linking promotion to savings for instance). It's really not that hard to do. If the will was there.

As far as I know the revenue commisioners are incentivised to catch tax fraud so why not do it this way for social welfare fraud?

Even if it costs money to push cases through the system, the public nature of the transgression and increased likelihood of getting caught will pay back in reduced fraud rates overall.

Treehousetim

I think that the the thread has deviated from the essence of what d mc w 's article was exploring. It's not just fraud that's the issue. The fact that people are better off financially not to work( irrelevant of top ups from other work) is in essence the issue with social welfare system.
And when people get onto disability payments they have nearly all their rent, fuel, tv license, medical card etc etc paid for so they have in essence very few expenses, like the average joe taxpayer.
Now some of the people are most deserving. While some are not as they are exaggerating symptoms and faking.
The system has big holes in it. That's the problem. Fraud is also a problem but in my eyes second to this and harder to challenge.

KyussBishop

Tackling fraud and inefficiency is the primary justifiable way of addressing these issues really, short of creating more jobs (which just isn't possible at the moment); usually all welfare discussions, after a very short while, become a vehicle for promoting the decimation of living standards for the least well off, through welfare cuts and simultaneously, across-the-board wage cuts (when that, as a proportion of income, raises everyones cost of living due to the essentials we import, that don't change in price).

It's not really ever very convincing a line of argument, and always get the feeling, it's covering over a much wider set of views, which are really advocating complete abolition of welfare, and decimation of labour power.


In the end anyway, it all goes back to jobs; when they are not available, and when there are a large number of unemployed people per job, trying to 'fix' that from the welfare and wage end of things (when people are already being hammered with increased costs/taxes), is simply draconian, and usually doesn't help the job situation at all because of the reduction in demand it causes.

The solution to all these problems, pretty much depends on jobs being made available, and this will not happen anytime soon, without the help of Europe (which will not happen), or unless we leave the Euro (where the damage taken will be enormous, but probably not as bad in the long term, as staying in our current limbo; particularly since the Euro will probably break up in the end anyway).

A stimulus-funded job guarantee (which does not automatically mean debt-funded; inflation-limited money creation is an economically possible method, which is politically impossible inside the Euro, but which can be used when the Euro breaks up), could pretty much provide all the jobs needed (as temporary public jobs), and can be used (except where there is good reason) to force people off of welfare, solving the welfare fraud problem, and can be used to provide jobs suitable to disabled people.


That last part in particular, as well as being very relevant to the article, I think is one of the most potentially important uses of a job guarantee program (even if people disagreed with a wider job guarantee, this is a particularly beneficial role for it); a lot of disabled people have trouble entering and staying in the workforce, but having work available would no doubt be an extremely beneficial thing to many of them personally, and would offer them an improved quality of life, and better feeling of belonging/integration into society.

So, such a job guarantee program specifically tailored to disabled people, can provide serious benefits to these people, can be used to bring many off of disability benefits (not forcing them to mind), and is a much more efficient use of money (even if it costs more overall), as actual useful services/goods can be provided with the money, instead of just giving the money away.

Icepick

Disability allowance for under-18s should be axed - report

The two reports – expected to be discussed at Cabinet tomorrow – argue that the move would encourage younger disabled people stay in education, improve their chances of employment and help prevent welfare dependency.

Gatling

Icepick wrote: »

Disability allowance for under-18s should be axed - report

Again you will have protests think of the poor disabled kids been robbed ,
I heard complaints that people on the lower paid welfare due to age aren't happy they don't get the 188 yet other younger people do

Treehousetim

Fair point- the image conjured up will be young adults in wheelchairs with quadriplegia or with Down's syndrome etc, emotive stuff. The truth is most adults on disability are not in this category at all.I would guess a lot of young adults on disability are ADHD and and some mild autisms ( aspergers- one of my mates has it and he's a fantastic software developer ) or dislexia that wouldn't mean they can't work in ANY jobs. You have to remember they are probably use to getting that domcillery benefit ( I think that stops at 16 ). So naturally they want something to replace it.

AlekSmart

Treehousetim wrote: »

Fair point- the image conjured up will be young adults in wheelchairs with quadriplegia or with Down's syndrome etc, emotive stuff. The truth is most adults on disability are not in this category at all.I would guess a lot of young adults on disability are ADHD and depressions and eating disorders and some mild autisms or dislexia that wouldn't mean they can't work in any jobs. You have to remember they are probably use to getting that domcillary benefit ( I think that stops at 16 ). So naturally they want something to replace it.

The old saying went something like......"Anythin...bar work....!"

Stoppin the benefit is the easy bit....changing the mindset will involve just a wee bit more effort....:rolleyes:

Nitochris

Treehousetim wrote: »

The truth is most adults on disability are not in this category at all.

Treehousetim wrote: »

I would guess a lot of young adults on disability are ADHD and and some mild autisms

You do notice the contradiction here, don't you?

AlekSmart wrote: »

The old saying went something like......"Anythin...bar work....!"

Are you trying to play into a stereotype in which people aren't disabled just lazy, or is it that the model of the neo-liberal person is often incompatible with those who are disabled?

AlekSmart wrote: »

changing the mindset will involve just a wee bit more effort....

Here, despite yourself you may have a point, in my experience most of us who are disabled want neither welfare or charity but many need something, while the former is the better of the two options as it prevents us from becoming the latest fashionable endeavour of the well healed that we would see if charity was the way to go, it does nothing to address the ableist structures of society and the economy, structures which you yourself seem to be promoting. So yes we need to challenge the collective mindset of society as a whole so that one day we do not need welfare. I also note your use of the term effort - yet more stereotyping or just poor choice of words.

AlekSmart

Nitochris wrote: »

Are you trying to play into a stereotype in which people aren't disabled just lazy,or is it that the model of the neo-liberal person is often incompatible with those who are disabled?

Here, despite yourself you may have a point, in my experience most of us who are disabled want neither welfare or charity but many need something, while the former is the better of the two options as it prevents us from becoming the latest fashionable endeavour of the well healed that we would see if charity was the way to go, it does nothing to address the ableist structures of society and the economy, structures which you yourself seem to be promoting. So yes we need to challenge the collective mindset of society as a whole so that one day we do not need welfare. I also note your use of the term effort - yet more stereotyping or just poor choice of words.

Not playing to any stereotype at all,Nitrochris.

The DmcW article quite correctly raised issues surrounding the numbers on Disability Allowance(s),which,it would appear,are regarded by many as sustainable.

This has nothing whatever to do with YOUR own situation whatever that may be,so my apologies if you consider it to be am "attack" of some sort...it's not.

I have some knowledge of the situation through the ID perspective,and yes,I believe that promoting a far more flexibile and reactive Education and Employment structure focused on Abilities rather than DISabilities is a far better methodology to adopt.

However,in our Social Welfare/Health Administration systems, resources which could,and should,have been directed into this (expensive and lengthy) process has long been directed into fast-track pigeon holing and getting people onto Disability with the minimum of alternatives being explored.

I am all too aware of our national reluctance to embark on Decision Making processes,particularly when the "Road less travelled" involves a certain lack of security allied to great uncertainty,whilst the more popular and (administratively) easier road is to just get on the books,and take what's going.

To suggest that I wish to throw Disabled People at the feet of "Well Heeled" charitables is simply wrong,and I would equally suggest that it is Wrong for so much of our National Health Infrastructure to be now dependant upon Hi-Profile Charitable Events and Donations.

Unfortunately,the stereotype you outline of being Not Disabled-Just Lazy,can and does carry a degree of accuracy.

The challenge now,Today,is how the Irish Health and Social Systems can begin to sift through the vast numbers of People now involved...many of whom are there because no viable alternative was ever offered to them.